Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    It's a close race.

    Sounds like Andrew Gillum did well in the debate. Talking about things that probably don't shift many votes.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
      Sanders voted for it too, because so many people were shit scared of crime in the mid 90s. Most of the opponents were Republicans, who presumably wanted a stricter bill.

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml
      He explained it. It was a huge bill with loads of stuff tacked on to it. Bill doesn't go through, the other bits don't go through.

      Here he is explaining it

      Comment


        Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
        Things are spectacularly shit at the bottom and further up in America, but it's fair to point out that Republicans in statehouses and blocking in Congress were a big part of that.

        In terms of stuff being shit "for regular folks", as tapped into by Trump, median incomes did pretty well in Obama's second term, up by 10.5%. Looking at the St Louis Fed graph, which goes back to 1984, I can't see a 4 year period with a rise as strong.
        Dems have done f all to reverse the trend that Reagan started.



        And this is pre-tax, not even factoring all the 1%er loopholes into account.

        Comment


          Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
          He explained it. It was a huge bill with loads of stuff tacked on to it. Bill doesn't go through, the other bits don't go through.

          Here he is explaining it
          That's feeble. Like Blair not opposing the 1994 Criminal Justice Bill because it was a big bill with stuff in he liked. And he only abstained.

          Comment


            I guess he's just a big fat centrist then. You should like him

            Comment


              Nah, I think that lots of people panicked about awful rates of violent crime and supported stuff they shouldn't have. The homicide rate was about double what it is now, and had been seriously shit for 20 years.
              Last edited by Tubby Isaacs; 22-10-2018, 22:21.

              Comment


                https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1054528129534955521

                Comment


                  "And yeah, I'm white, okay? Guilty. So I'm a white nationalist, and I'm proud to be a white nationalist!"

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                    Nah, I think that lots of people panicked about awful rates of violent crime and supported stuff they shouldn't have. The homicide rate was about double what it is now, and had been seriously shit for 20 years.
                    Yes, but the mass incarceration policies enacted at the state and federal level under Clinton had little to do with violent crime and more to do with targeting certain communities. Like the terrorism legislation in the uk over the last decade the gereal population went ahead with it as the implication it would not be used against them.

                    Comment


                      Very much so.

                      It's an essential truth that many observers miss. Policies can appear to be "neutral" or even "common sense" on their face, but everyone involved knows (and relies on) the fact that they will not be implemented in anything resembling an impartial way.

                      Comment


                        Indeed. The fear of crime had been a racist dogwhistle since the late 1960s when Nixon alighted on it as a safe way to enable racist whites to talk about race issues. The Clintons crime bill was entirely constructed within the franework of this racist narrative. Which Sanders acknowledged, but voted for it primarily because it provided 1.8Bn in funding to tackle crimes against women.

                        You might call it feeble, but I do wish you'd let us know when pragmatism is feeble and to be condemned, and when it's a sensible grown up politician kind of thing to do. I can't keep up.

                        Comment


                          everyone involved knows (and relies on) the fact that they will not be implemented in anything resembling an impartial way.
                          e.g. "nobody is talking about leaving the single market"

                          Comment


                            You might call it feeble, but I do wish you'd let us know when pragmatism is feeble and to be condemned, and when it's a sensible grown up politician kind of thing to do. I can't keep up.
                            I was talking about the framing here, rather than Sanders. This was a definingly awful bill that meant nobody should vote for Hillary Clinton one minute, but when it's pointed out Sanders voted for it, it seemed to become a bill full of good stuff that deserved support.

                            I'm well aware of how American crime rhetoric works, Willie Horton etc. It was an awful bill that I wouldn't defend. What I was saying was that I can see why lots of people who weren't dogwhistling racists might have gone along with it. You're talking about a murder rate getting on for 10 times what ours was for 20 odd years. I don't think it makes Sanders a centrist or anything else, I think his vote for it was just of its time.

                            I wasn't thinking in terms of pragmatism, and don't think it's all that relevant for an individual congressman when the bill's going to pass anyway by miles. But I had assumed that Sanders' Vermont At Large district was fairly safe. But now I look at the next election (the Gingrich "Contract with America" 1994 crap), he was run very close. So perhaps he did feel he needed to be looking over his shoulder on this stuff?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
                              Yes, but the mass incarceration policies enacted at the state and federal level under Clinton had little to do with violent crime and more to do with targeting certain communities. Like the terrorism legislation in the uk over the last decade the gereal population went ahead with it as the implication it would not be used against them.
                              Yes, I agree about this awful bill.

                              In terms of state politics, the Democrats got killed in the governor elections in the next round (including big states California, New York and Texas), so they've less responsibility for state level stuff. Which probably also tells you that this bill was a bad idea electorally too.

                              Comment


                                I was talking about the framing here, rather than Sanders. This was a definingly awful bill that meant nobody should vote for Hillary Clinton one minute, but when it's pointed out Sanders voted for it, it seemed to become a bill full of good stuff that deserved support.
                                Well I suppose that's one version of events

                                Comment


                                  https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1054778971290849280

                                  Comment


                                    This thread is worth reading

                                    https://twitter.com/kdrum/status/1054585310858956801?s=21

                                    The amount of Trump lies. The state of Fox News. How to stop a monster?

                                    Comment


                                      Yglesias had a decent summary of the system that fosters that today.

                                      The hack gap has two core pillars. One is the constellation of conservative media outlets — led by Fox News and other Rupert Murdoch properties like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but also including Sinclair Broadcasting in local television, much of AM talk radio, and new media offerings such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller — that simply abjure anything resembling journalism in favor of propaganda.

                                      The other is that the self-consciousness journalists at legacy outlets have about accusations of liberal bias leads them to bend over backward to allow the leading conservative gripes of the day to dominate the news agenda. Television producers who would never dream of assigning segments where talking heads debate whether it’s bad that the richest country on earth also has millions of children growing up in dire poverty think nothing of chasing random conservative shiny objects, from “Fast & Furious” (remember that one?) to Benghazi to the migrant caravan.

                                      Comment


                                        I'll, er, put this here rather than the Khashoggi thread, as it's about the Donald, rather than Jamal Khashoggi.

                                        "They had a very bad original concept, it was carried out poorly and the cover-up was the worst in the history of cover-ups."

                                        "Whoever thought of that idea, I think is in big trouble. And they should be in big trouble."

                                        "Bad original concept" - cometh the hour, cometh the statesman


                                        - here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45960865

                                        Comment


                                          It wasn't even original. Tarantino had this shit down in the 1990s.

                                          Comment


                                            Does this mean the bonesaw chap will be flogging us insurance in a couple of decades' time?

                                            Comment


                                              https://twitter.com/mylesmill/status/1055080496055627777?s=21

                                              Follows on from an explosive device having being delivered to George Soros’ home (not that far away) over the weekend.

                                              Comment


                                                If he loses narrowly in 2020 he could conceivably incite a civil war.

                                                Comment


                                                  Indeed Anton, unlike the blah-blah about Brexiters rioting here if they don't get their prize, I can see serious disturbances in the US when Trump is ousted.

                                                  Comment


                                                    My TV recently has been full of a generic Republican scaremongering ad, telling us that Democrats will bring (along with "Socialism" and "100% government run healthcare" - as if) violence and chaos and destruction and incivility (with, hilariously, pictures of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi).

                                                    I wonder how they'll sustain the idea that it's the left that's bringing violence to America when bombs are arriving at Soros, Clinton and Obama residences.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X